Excuse me. You have given my article a title (Shakespeare wrote modern antisemitism's playbook) that is the diametrical opposite of what my article argues. I am arguing that Shakespeare critiques anti-semitism and your title says that Shakespeare supported it. Probably the person who wrote the title didn't read the article. I completely disagree with this new title. Kindly change the title to my title, which is, "How Shakespeare Invented what We Call a Phobia."
How can someone combine such logic and brevity while producing such a masterpiece of literary analysis. Personally I think it should be compulsory reading for ALL students of Shakespeare. Ever since my exposure to The Merchant of Venice while in secondary school sixty years ago I have believed Shylock to be written as a sympathetic character, and the hence criticism of Shakespeare as antisemitic to be unwarranted.
Shakespeare’s understanding of human nature is unsurpassed.
Shylock, the character, is operating in an environment where virtually all the other characters, bar ONE, are antisemitic and where moneylending is one of few occupations Jews can undertake.
The Christian characters’ hypocrisy in using moneylenders, including gentile ones, is made explicit.
Shylock’s speech about people disliking pigs, cats or bagpipes clearly identifies this as irrational, but sane people don’t want to kill all pigs, cats or bagpipers. He thus differentiates hatred from mere dislike. Identifying these protagonists’ hatred of Shylock as irrational is possibly the first depiction of Jew hatred as a phobia - Judaphobia, which unlike that other ‘phobia’ which so exercises the minds of our political class, actually exists and gets people killed.
On reading your article this message came through loud and clear. I was amazed that the publisher, in altering your heading, could get it so wrong.
I fear you’ll get no response or a hostile one. Attacking Shakespeare suits the prejudice of the publisher who had preciously published articles making that ‘argument’.
Why are you even here? This is a Jewish perspective written about The Merchant of Venice. An excellent article that unpack complex themes and is a literary analysis delving into Shakespeare's intentions and brilliance. What you do when you jump in with your repetitive and fixated and very shallow agenda based on hate, is that you bring an interesting, intellectual argument down to a base level.
I won't lower myself to have anything to do with you. But I do suggest you learn enough self awareness not to jump into conversations that go way above your head.
This superb essay is a much-needed corrective. Shylock is not merely the most complex character in the play, as well as the one persecuted from beginning to end; he is the only character other than his daughter with any complexity at all. Ms. Vanita is probably right: whomever titled her essay couldn’t bother to read it. Her analogy to the vicious hatred of Israel is spot-on: Shylock is vengeful in no context and the Israelis have nothing better to do than hurt Gazan children. There are no hostages being tortured for nearly 2 years in Gaza, no Hamas in Gaza, no Hamas fan club in Gaza, there was no pogrom, or vow by Hamas to repeat its abomination again and again.
So glad. I hope you received a serious apology but not holding my breath. What you say is very important. Tablet not long ago published some rote thing asserting that Shakespeare is antisemitic. I hope you’ve seen or will see Olivier’s wonderful portrait of Shylock — the director’s handling of the end, both with Shylock and Jessica, is devastating. Also, please pardon me in case I’m wrong, but I think the Scotsmen are unable to remain continent when they hear bagpipes because they’re thrilled and excited, not angry, and Shylock’s list isn’t about unreasoning hatred but unreason itself. G-d bless you, Ms. Vanita.
It's been a long while since I've reread this play in particular but any Shakespeare actually--I was a master's degree student in English Literature then became a therapist. I loved your article. And the fact that the play and its words are so open to variable interpretations is the genius of Shakespeare...and who really knows who Shakespeare was or what he thought. He was a keen observer of humans of all stripes, and a brilliant poet as he conveyed what he saw and understood. Your essay caused me to rethink and reexamine and reappreciate--both the literature and the current situation for Israel and Jews. Thank you so much!
Thank you. Nothing like going back to Shakespeare. Insights into every experience and emotion. I have other posts on poetry on my substack:https://ruthvanita452091.substack.com/
I will read your whole article in earnest. However, the first sentence may not be accurate. It is of course a truism but it not necessarily true or factual. Even though it is based on a fact. That fact as you mention is a banishment of Jews from England in the 1200's. In reality, if no other factual example provides evidence and proof that your first sentence, truism though it is, is not the whole truth. King Henry VIII had depression. He heard or was advised that music can lift one's spirits i.e. remove or lesson depression. In the same period it was known that The Doge or 'governor of Venice' also had depression and had Court musicians who helped cure him of depression. King Henry VIII sent an envoy to invesigate and meet the said musicians and possibly hire them to come to England to play for King Henry VIII. The five Brothers Bassano of Venice were thus hired and moved to London. At first they were housed in Royal Quarters for such employees. Soon enough they were able to move to their own London property. The Bassanos were Jewish. As were other 'clans' of Bassanos who lived in a few other parts of Italy at least since the Spanish Inquisition. There is one Professor of Musicology who has written a book about the Bassanos. One of those Brothers married in London and had a daughter who became one of England's first women writers/poets. That was Emilia Bassano Lanier. Lanier was her married name. The Bassano's lived in the district where other Jews lived. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jews LIVED IN LONDON in the 1500s. YES, they lived England in London in particular WHILE the ban of the 1200s was still 'on the books'. Like the Bassano's and like in many countries Jews were simply allowed or tolerated or invited because they had particular skills, trades, or knowledge. There were approximately 100 Jews in that section of London. I think it was in or near Shoreditch. There was a shtebel i.e. a 'synagogue' hidden likely in someone's home. So though the 100 or so Jews lived in London they were not to show themselves outside dressed or conspicuously dressed as Jews. The Bassono's as mentioned were successful enough to purchase their own property to live in as well as other properties related to their professions which included making musical instruments with a speciality of Recorders i.e. wooden wind instruments. It SEEMS according to some, that the Bassanos also owned at least 1 theatre and were likely also involved in producing theatre and plays including writing and/or translating plays from Italian. They lived in London from the mid 1500s. There are several reasons just mentioned that you opening sentence, though based on a truism and a single fact of legal banishment, has to face the obvious factual indicators above which directly contradict your opening sentence.
Ok, I looked it up and it seems far from certain that the Bassanos were Jews. Scholars take different views and are still debating the matter. They were Italians and may have been Jews who had converted to Christianity or may not. There is no definitive evidence either way. In any case, they were not openly Jewish. But it is fascinating that Bassanio's name is so close to Bassano. They were Italians for sure and so are all the characters in the play. Almost an argument in itself for those, like A.K. Rowse, who claim the Bassanos were Jews.
Ok great. Good to know. I’ll look into it. This substack is based on a chapter in my 2025 book, Shakespeare's Re-Visions of History. https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Re-Visions-History-Collusion-Resistance/dp/9366273513, . One of my main points in the book chapter is that Bassanio is the only character in the play who is not Jew-hating. His name would make perfect sense in that case.
Thank you for a fascinating article. What do you think motivated Shakespeare to write Merchant of Venice?
I saw the brilliant version of this play staged in 2023 by British actor/director Tracy-Ann Oberman. She transported it to London’s East End in the 1930s and a female Shylock. Very pertinent in the political climate…
It’s been suggested by others that since he witnessed the persecution and torture of Catholics, including members of his own extended family, such as the poet Robert Southwell (who was hung, drawn and quartered) and he also knew how the Queen’s Jewish doctor, although a convert, was executed as a Jew, he could sympathize. I write about the persecution of Catholics (with regard to other plays) in my 2025 book, Shakespeare's Re-Visions of History, on which this essay is based. https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Re-Visions-History-Collusion-Resistance/dp/9366273513
I am not sure that the title is refers to Shakespeare’s support of Jew Hatred… in fact, I read the opposite. Shakespeare was actually articulating the Jew hatred of his day and, frankly, offering fairly strong arguments as to the “Judeophobia” that you’ve presented.
However, in many of your analogies to today’s situations, you, too, seemed to have asserted that Shakespeare’s description of the continued arguments in the play as an updated argument.
A “playbook” that is still being used.
Or, as Ecclessiastes points out, “there is nothing new under the sun”.
While the idea of the “playbook” may be poorly worded, I, personally, did not see any bias as to the author’s intent. Conversely, your beautiful article in many ways actually noted that Shakespeare understood the irrationality of the phobia through Shylock’s dialogue.
You are absolutely right. My title on my substack is “How Shakespeare Invented what We Call.a Phobia.” They changed my title here to "Shakespeare wrote modern anti-semitism's playbook" and the new title makes no sense with this article. I’m trying to get them to change the title back
The publisher who came up with this title ( my original title was completely different) has now changed it from “Shakespeare wrote the playbook” to “Shakespeare foresaw the playbook”
British student of history here. The Elizabethan crowd watching this play regularly saw and took part in gross cruelty to "outsiders", anyone foreign or strange (mentally ill or disabled) on the street could be targeted and would be beaten, even killed, to cheers from a street audience. It was a constant problem for the London authorities, especially with the City of London apprentices, who took any excuse to riot and destroy "outsiders" property. The vile abuse dealt out to Shylock in the play would have seemed nothing abnormal to Shakespeare's audiences (and officially justified, in theological terms, not that the mob really cared about religion).
Reading Shylock's words as you set them out here, and remembering many stage productions of The Merchant, I wondered if anyone has ever cast an African-American in the role? Since the days of the Civil Rights Movement, Black characters have been given rather noble and "saintly" responses, when persecuted, in plays or film, by racists. Whereas Jewish actors are seen as "White" (as Israelis are) and the dynamic is different. A Black Shylock would certainly give a modern audience a chance to see the Christian characters' 'phobia as it truly was - irrational hate - stripping away bogus justifications like the difference of religion and the "evil' of money-lending.
Until the early twentieth century, Jews were seen as non-white and were identifiable as Jews. They were hated as non-whites; now they are hated as whites. Shylock dresses differently from others ("my Jewish gaberdine"). In Shakespeare's time, Jews in Venice were required to wear yellow hats. Turning Shylock black to make a point about African-Americans would be wrong, in my view, because it would be appropriating a clearly Jewish tragedy to another group, thereby downgrading the history of Jewish "sufferance." By the way, this essay is based on a chapter in my 2025 book, Shakespeare's Re-Visions of History. https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Re-Visions-History-Collusion-Resistance/dp/9366273513
Indeed. Although the religious aspect of Jew-hate in Europe can never be overstated, I grew up hearing elderly Catholics talk about "Christ killers". My thought experiment about using a Black actor would be to prick the hypocrites in the modern audience who seem to wave away current antisemitism as "understandable" because they have a view that says Arabs = Brown people, Israelis = white. Nonsense of course.
I LOVED this article an' comminted onnit on Ruth's stack but I'm'ma sharin' it back again as I think it's the BEST take on Shakespeare an' his most sensitive an' righteous character Shylock!
Bein' an act-russ an' fan of The Bard, I'm one'a the staunch supporters of the Shakespeare Authorship group not buyin' the tale of the illiterate actor. I DO bee-lieve "Shakspur" as "he" amusin'ly spelt hiz name wuz none other than Amelia (Emilia) Bassano Lanier!
On this very stack (Joshua's not Ruth's) I also elaborated a bit 'bout my reasonin' havin' read purdy extensively (beyond Hudson/book above) onnit. This may amuse summa ya's!
In brief. I find Merchant ta be the MOST sympathetic portrayal of a man tryin' ta keep his dignity UNDER the scourge of antisemitism--spit upon, cursed, disrespected by his daughter who runs off ta marry a gentile, an' finally--the ultimate shame--made ta convert. The only non-twit in the play--as Ruth here is quick ta bring up--is Bassanio.
Amelia BASSANO --coinkydink? (Lanier came later...she had ta marry when she became "with child")
The Bassanos were joos that had ta convert (conversos) an' I'm sure that stuck with her father... my guess is this is a character honorin' her father an' showin' up those around him who brought him to his knees... a "shonda"/ shame on them, not on him....
I wouldn assume that Josh here is not intentionally against what Ms Vanita's sayin' here -- nor underminin' it "a'purpose" with his replacement title...which was likely chosen fer his idear of clarity. I feel his wheelhouse--an' golly he's a great writer on many'a topic--ain't Shakespeare an' he may simply not git that subtext an' irony do play inta the character of Shylock.
Full trooth, many actors git 'im wrong too--they play 'im as the baddie but really--he's LEAR (also a man misunderstood, mistreated, deemed irrelevant--tho' at least one daughter sticks with 'im...Shylock ain't so lucky) In many ways... Shylock is a truly a rich role, one'a the best! (an' that ain't readin' "against the grain")
I'm always (as a performer) blown away at how many roles are misunderstood... but then again. most folks dunno Machiavelli (The Prince) wuz SATIRE notta blueprint!
Props fer this GREAT arty'cull an' fer showin' the deep understandin' that Shakespeare (Ms or Mister) had fer his finely written character! (An' it's good it's been promoted in this stack but indeed the title should be fixed post haste)
Dearest “Chief Crackpot:” We haven’t corresponded in months, if not years. I didn’t know that you were also a literature expert. Kol hakavod. Some 60 or so years ago, while reading “Merchant…” in my high school English class, I wrote a term paper, based solely on a close reading of the text and Shylock’s speech, arguing that the play was philo-Semitic, not anti. Of course, I didn’t know the full history of the Jews in England, as explicated so well in this post and its commentaries. [aside: did you ever have a chance to read my book “Separated Together?”]
Howdy back at'cha an' I DO appreciate the comply-mint! ah, I'd never call m'self an "expurt" but let's say I'm'a deep admirer of "da good stuff" an' no "act-teur or act-truss" worth their weight in salt, gold, or ...dare I say flesh (er mebbe better fleysh ;-) should fail to inhale (deeply!) of The Bard(ess) of Avon. Too many do (fail), of course, which is why they ain't worth even a penny farthin'. That said, quite impressive thar that 60 years ago as a young whipper snapper ya managed ta appreciate (all senses of the woid) the philo-semitic nature of one of Shakespeare's most well wrought an' neshama-rentin' characters! As I said...many great performers never caught wise an' played the dang role "on the nose" (notta jooish yoke thar!)...an' sadly rendered a diminished performance unworthy of the text.
Then again, all things considered, The King's Players were a mix of "well-seasoned" performers an' a good smatterin' of "tasteLESS" wet-behind-the-ears young whippersnappers in drag there fer a lark makin' the entire affair far more raucous than maw-durn expectations would indy-cate. An' that's not even includin' the audience! WHAT kinda Shylock might the groundlings have seen from down below? Would've liked ta have been a fly on the wall...likely there whar many (flies that iz)!
Why, Dayzee! How nice to reconnect with you, after Lo so much time has passed - especially since we are recon’n on someone else’ substack’s dime! I remain in a deep remission from Multiple Myeloma [good!], though I am suffrin’ serious pain, similar to what I had before I was properly diagnosed [bad] and treated properly with CAR-T (the new medical marvel that has put me into remission). My book has finally been translated into German and is expected to be published (the book, not the remission) in Deutschland at the end of this year or beginning of next. Are you feeling/doing better? I don’t think I can continue carrying on about us on someone else’s substack, so shoot me a note. Or just shoot me. 😘
Phobia is usually defined as an irrational, morbid fear of a thing, as in gynophobia, the fear of women.
Misia is usually defined as a hatred of a thing, as in misogyny, the hatred of women.
Judophobia would thus be an irrational fear of Jews while Judomesia would be a hatred of Jews. Thus one can fear a thing without desiring to kill it, but if one hates a thing, then wishing to eliminate it would be an expected reaction. And given the opportunity, haters do execute their hatreds in real time.
It is necessary to make the distinction between a phobia and a misia because otherwise for political or propaganda purposes one could manipulate the term "phobia" to disguise hatred, in so doing, making violence socially acceptable, as we see more and more on our streets and campuses.
Excuse me. You have given my article a title (Shakespeare wrote modern antisemitism's playbook) that is the diametrical opposite of what my article argues. I am arguing that Shakespeare critiques anti-semitism and your title says that Shakespeare supported it. Probably the person who wrote the title didn't read the article. I completely disagree with this new title. Kindly change the title to my title, which is, "How Shakespeare Invented what We Call a Phobia."
Dear Ruth
I read your article in wonder and awe.
How can someone combine such logic and brevity while producing such a masterpiece of literary analysis. Personally I think it should be compulsory reading for ALL students of Shakespeare. Ever since my exposure to The Merchant of Venice while in secondary school sixty years ago I have believed Shylock to be written as a sympathetic character, and the hence criticism of Shakespeare as antisemitic to be unwarranted.
Shakespeare’s understanding of human nature is unsurpassed.
Shylock, the character, is operating in an environment where virtually all the other characters, bar ONE, are antisemitic and where moneylending is one of few occupations Jews can undertake.
The Christian characters’ hypocrisy in using moneylenders, including gentile ones, is made explicit.
Shylock’s speech about people disliking pigs, cats or bagpipes clearly identifies this as irrational, but sane people don’t want to kill all pigs, cats or bagpipers. He thus differentiates hatred from mere dislike. Identifying these protagonists’ hatred of Shylock as irrational is possibly the first depiction of Jew hatred as a phobia - Judaphobia, which unlike that other ‘phobia’ which so exercises the minds of our political class, actually exists and gets people killed.
On reading your article this message came through loud and clear. I was amazed that the publisher, in altering your heading, could get it so wrong.
Thanks for a wonderful insightful article
P
Thank you so much for your very kind comment. You might find my substack of interest:https://ruthvanita452091.substack.com/
Kol hakavod, Ruth. This article is a masterpiece. I look forward to searching out and reading your other published pieces. Keep up the good work.
Brachot,
Jake
Thank you so much. Most of my books are on Amazon. My substack: https://ruthvanita452091.substack.com/archive
Just did. I am curious how mistitling can occur and if the powers that be will be rectifying their big boo boo
Sir Peter,
Here, here. I came to this page to record a compliment to the author, but I could not say it better than you have.
Bravo.
I fear you’ll get no response or a hostile one. Attacking Shakespeare suits the prejudice of the publisher who had preciously published articles making that ‘argument’.
Let's see. I've messaged him too.
Matthew is an arch antizionist and Jew hater. He's just stirring.
Outside of your little bubble, your histrionic supremacist drivel is laughed at, rightfully.
Why are you even here? This is a Jewish perspective written about The Merchant of Venice. An excellent article that unpack complex themes and is a literary analysis delving into Shakespeare's intentions and brilliance. What you do when you jump in with your repetitive and fixated and very shallow agenda based on hate, is that you bring an interesting, intellectual argument down to a base level.
I won't lower myself to have anything to do with you. But I do suggest you learn enough self awareness not to jump into conversations that go way above your head.
You have not said a word about the article but sneered and attacked my comment. Go away and keep my name out of your mouth.
Fantastic. The heading is changed😊
Good points… and may be the Dark Lady - Sonnet 127 … was Jewish
This superb essay is a much-needed corrective. Shylock is not merely the most complex character in the play, as well as the one persecuted from beginning to end; he is the only character other than his daughter with any complexity at all. Ms. Vanita is probably right: whomever titled her essay couldn’t bother to read it. Her analogy to the vicious hatred of Israel is spot-on: Shylock is vengeful in no context and the Israelis have nothing better to do than hurt Gazan children. There are no hostages being tortured for nearly 2 years in Gaza, no Hamas in Gaza, no Hamas fan club in Gaza, there was no pogrom, or vow by Hamas to repeat its abomination again and again.
Thank you. They have now modified the title, I see.
So glad. I hope you received a serious apology but not holding my breath. What you say is very important. Tablet not long ago published some rote thing asserting that Shakespeare is antisemitic. I hope you’ve seen or will see Olivier’s wonderful portrait of Shylock — the director’s handling of the end, both with Shylock and Jessica, is devastating. Also, please pardon me in case I’m wrong, but I think the Scotsmen are unable to remain continent when they hear bagpipes because they’re thrilled and excited, not angry, and Shylock’s list isn’t about unreasoning hatred but unreason itself. G-d bless you, Ms. Vanita.
Thank you so much. Yes, I showed the Olivier film to all my students at the University of Montana, with that wonderful ending.
Montana! Super! They’re privileged to have such a thoughtful, searching, brave professor.
Thank you so much.
You might like some of the other posts on my substack: https://ruthvanita452091.substack.com/
❤️
It's been a long while since I've reread this play in particular but any Shakespeare actually--I was a master's degree student in English Literature then became a therapist. I loved your article. And the fact that the play and its words are so open to variable interpretations is the genius of Shakespeare...and who really knows who Shakespeare was or what he thought. He was a keen observer of humans of all stripes, and a brilliant poet as he conveyed what he saw and understood. Your essay caused me to rethink and reexamine and reappreciate--both the literature and the current situation for Israel and Jews. Thank you so much!
Thank you. Nothing like going back to Shakespeare. Insights into every experience and emotion. I have other posts on poetry on my substack:https://ruthvanita452091.substack.com/
Superb article. Thank you!
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
Ruth, this is a profound explanation of what Merchant is about. As a Christian who supports Jews and Israel, I thank you.
I will read your whole article in earnest. However, the first sentence may not be accurate. It is of course a truism but it not necessarily true or factual. Even though it is based on a fact. That fact as you mention is a banishment of Jews from England in the 1200's. In reality, if no other factual example provides evidence and proof that your first sentence, truism though it is, is not the whole truth. King Henry VIII had depression. He heard or was advised that music can lift one's spirits i.e. remove or lesson depression. In the same period it was known that The Doge or 'governor of Venice' also had depression and had Court musicians who helped cure him of depression. King Henry VIII sent an envoy to invesigate and meet the said musicians and possibly hire them to come to England to play for King Henry VIII. The five Brothers Bassano of Venice were thus hired and moved to London. At first they were housed in Royal Quarters for such employees. Soon enough they were able to move to their own London property. The Bassanos were Jewish. As were other 'clans' of Bassanos who lived in a few other parts of Italy at least since the Spanish Inquisition. There is one Professor of Musicology who has written a book about the Bassanos. One of those Brothers married in London and had a daughter who became one of England's first women writers/poets. That was Emilia Bassano Lanier. Lanier was her married name. The Bassano's lived in the district where other Jews lived. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jews LIVED IN LONDON in the 1500s. YES, they lived England in London in particular WHILE the ban of the 1200s was still 'on the books'. Like the Bassano's and like in many countries Jews were simply allowed or tolerated or invited because they had particular skills, trades, or knowledge. There were approximately 100 Jews in that section of London. I think it was in or near Shoreditch. There was a shtebel i.e. a 'synagogue' hidden likely in someone's home. So though the 100 or so Jews lived in London they were not to show themselves outside dressed or conspicuously dressed as Jews. The Bassono's as mentioned were successful enough to purchase their own property to live in as well as other properties related to their professions which included making musical instruments with a speciality of Recorders i.e. wooden wind instruments. It SEEMS according to some, that the Bassanos also owned at least 1 theatre and were likely also involved in producing theatre and plays including writing and/or translating plays from Italian. They lived in London from the mid 1500s. There are several reasons just mentioned that you opening sentence, though based on a truism and a single fact of legal banishment, has to face the obvious factual indicators above which directly contradict your opening sentence.
Ok, I looked it up and it seems far from certain that the Bassanos were Jews. Scholars take different views and are still debating the matter. They were Italians and may have been Jews who had converted to Christianity or may not. There is no definitive evidence either way. In any case, they were not openly Jewish. But it is fascinating that Bassanio's name is so close to Bassano. They were Italians for sure and so are all the characters in the play. Almost an argument in itself for those, like A.K. Rowse, who claim the Bassanos were Jews.
Ok great. Good to know. I’ll look into it. This substack is based on a chapter in my 2025 book, Shakespeare's Re-Visions of History. https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Re-Visions-History-Collusion-Resistance/dp/9366273513, . One of my main points in the book chapter is that Bassanio is the only character in the play who is not Jew-hating. His name would make perfect sense in that case.
Thank you for a fascinating article. What do you think motivated Shakespeare to write Merchant of Venice?
I saw the brilliant version of this play staged in 2023 by British actor/director Tracy-Ann Oberman. She transported it to London’s East End in the 1930s and a female Shylock. Very pertinent in the political climate…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze2d_n4pRuw&pp=ygUXbWVyY2hhbnQgb2YgdmVuaWNlIDE5MzY%3D
Thank you. I prefer not to speculate about motives but to respond to the text as we have it.
Beautifully written.
and thx
Powerful and insightful piece …btw his (Shakespeare’s) perspicacity betokens a deep intimacy with the Jewish psyche - odd when no Jews in his midst.
It’s been suggested by others that since he witnessed the persecution and torture of Catholics, including members of his own extended family, such as the poet Robert Southwell (who was hung, drawn and quartered) and he also knew how the Queen’s Jewish doctor, although a convert, was executed as a Jew, he could sympathize. I write about the persecution of Catholics (with regard to other plays) in my 2025 book, Shakespeare's Re-Visions of History, on which this essay is based. https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Re-Visions-History-Collusion-Resistance/dp/9366273513
Good points… and maybe the Dark Lady - Sonnet 127 was Jewish…
Ms. Vanita
I am not sure that the title is refers to Shakespeare’s support of Jew Hatred… in fact, I read the opposite. Shakespeare was actually articulating the Jew hatred of his day and, frankly, offering fairly strong arguments as to the “Judeophobia” that you’ve presented.
However, in many of your analogies to today’s situations, you, too, seemed to have asserted that Shakespeare’s description of the continued arguments in the play as an updated argument.
A “playbook” that is still being used.
Or, as Ecclessiastes points out, “there is nothing new under the sun”.
While the idea of the “playbook” may be poorly worded, I, personally, did not see any bias as to the author’s intent. Conversely, your beautiful article in many ways actually noted that Shakespeare understood the irrationality of the phobia through Shylock’s dialogue.
You are absolutely right. My title on my substack is “How Shakespeare Invented what We Call.a Phobia.” They changed my title here to "Shakespeare wrote modern anti-semitism's playbook" and the new title makes no sense with this article. I’m trying to get them to change the title back
What if the writer had used a word such as "predicted"? ...that Shakespeare predicted modern antisemitism's playbook?
The publisher who came up with this title ( my original title was completely different) has now changed it from “Shakespeare wrote the playbook” to “Shakespeare foresaw the playbook”
How about that! Perhaps just a case of sloppiness. No pound of flesh required this time?
Excellent piece, thank you.
British student of history here. The Elizabethan crowd watching this play regularly saw and took part in gross cruelty to "outsiders", anyone foreign or strange (mentally ill or disabled) on the street could be targeted and would be beaten, even killed, to cheers from a street audience. It was a constant problem for the London authorities, especially with the City of London apprentices, who took any excuse to riot and destroy "outsiders" property. The vile abuse dealt out to Shylock in the play would have seemed nothing abnormal to Shakespeare's audiences (and officially justified, in theological terms, not that the mob really cared about religion).
Reading Shylock's words as you set them out here, and remembering many stage productions of The Merchant, I wondered if anyone has ever cast an African-American in the role? Since the days of the Civil Rights Movement, Black characters have been given rather noble and "saintly" responses, when persecuted, in plays or film, by racists. Whereas Jewish actors are seen as "White" (as Israelis are) and the dynamic is different. A Black Shylock would certainly give a modern audience a chance to see the Christian characters' 'phobia as it truly was - irrational hate - stripping away bogus justifications like the difference of religion and the "evil' of money-lending.
Until the early twentieth century, Jews were seen as non-white and were identifiable as Jews. They were hated as non-whites; now they are hated as whites. Shylock dresses differently from others ("my Jewish gaberdine"). In Shakespeare's time, Jews in Venice were required to wear yellow hats. Turning Shylock black to make a point about African-Americans would be wrong, in my view, because it would be appropriating a clearly Jewish tragedy to another group, thereby downgrading the history of Jewish "sufferance." By the way, this essay is based on a chapter in my 2025 book, Shakespeare's Re-Visions of History. https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Re-Visions-History-Collusion-Resistance/dp/9366273513
Indeed. Although the religious aspect of Jew-hate in Europe can never be overstated, I grew up hearing elderly Catholics talk about "Christ killers". My thought experiment about using a Black actor would be to prick the hypocrites in the modern audience who seem to wave away current antisemitism as "understandable" because they have a view that says Arabs = Brown people, Israelis = white. Nonsense of course.
I will look out for your book.
I LOVED this article an' comminted onnit on Ruth's stack but I'm'ma sharin' it back again as I think it's the BEST take on Shakespeare an' his most sensitive an' righteous character Shylock!
This here's what I wrote:
https://substack.com/profile/42043855-daisy-moses-chief-crackpot/note/c-134741776
Bein' an act-russ an' fan of The Bard, I'm one'a the staunch supporters of the Shakespeare Authorship group not buyin' the tale of the illiterate actor. I DO bee-lieve "Shakspur" as "he" amusin'ly spelt hiz name wuz none other than Amelia (Emilia) Bassano Lanier!
https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Dark-Lady-Amelia-Bassano/dp/1445655241/ref=sr_1_1
On this very stack (Joshua's not Ruth's) I also elaborated a bit 'bout my reasonin' havin' read purdy extensively (beyond Hudson/book above) onnit. This may amuse summa ya's!
https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/britain-has-a-jewish-problem/comment/134106228
In brief. I find Merchant ta be the MOST sympathetic portrayal of a man tryin' ta keep his dignity UNDER the scourge of antisemitism--spit upon, cursed, disrespected by his daughter who runs off ta marry a gentile, an' finally--the ultimate shame--made ta convert. The only non-twit in the play--as Ruth here is quick ta bring up--is Bassanio.
Amelia BASSANO --coinkydink? (Lanier came later...she had ta marry when she became "with child")
The Bassanos were joos that had ta convert (conversos) an' I'm sure that stuck with her father... my guess is this is a character honorin' her father an' showin' up those around him who brought him to his knees... a "shonda"/ shame on them, not on him....
I wouldn assume that Josh here is not intentionally against what Ms Vanita's sayin' here -- nor underminin' it "a'purpose" with his replacement title...which was likely chosen fer his idear of clarity. I feel his wheelhouse--an' golly he's a great writer on many'a topic--ain't Shakespeare an' he may simply not git that subtext an' irony do play inta the character of Shylock.
Full trooth, many actors git 'im wrong too--they play 'im as the baddie but really--he's LEAR (also a man misunderstood, mistreated, deemed irrelevant--tho' at least one daughter sticks with 'im...Shylock ain't so lucky) In many ways... Shylock is a truly a rich role, one'a the best! (an' that ain't readin' "against the grain")
I'm always (as a performer) blown away at how many roles are misunderstood... but then again. most folks dunno Machiavelli (The Prince) wuz SATIRE notta blueprint!
Props fer this GREAT arty'cull an' fer showin' the deep understandin' that Shakespeare (Ms or Mister) had fer his finely written character! (An' it's good it's been promoted in this stack but indeed the title should be fixed post haste)
Dearest “Chief Crackpot:” We haven’t corresponded in months, if not years. I didn’t know that you were also a literature expert. Kol hakavod. Some 60 or so years ago, while reading “Merchant…” in my high school English class, I wrote a term paper, based solely on a close reading of the text and Shylock’s speech, arguing that the play was philo-Semitic, not anti. Of course, I didn’t know the full history of the Jews in England, as explicated so well in this post and its commentaries. [aside: did you ever have a chance to read my book “Separated Together?”]
Howdy back at'cha an' I DO appreciate the comply-mint! ah, I'd never call m'self an "expurt" but let's say I'm'a deep admirer of "da good stuff" an' no "act-teur or act-truss" worth their weight in salt, gold, or ...dare I say flesh (er mebbe better fleysh ;-) should fail to inhale (deeply!) of The Bard(ess) of Avon. Too many do (fail), of course, which is why they ain't worth even a penny farthin'. That said, quite impressive thar that 60 years ago as a young whipper snapper ya managed ta appreciate (all senses of the woid) the philo-semitic nature of one of Shakespeare's most well wrought an' neshama-rentin' characters! As I said...many great performers never caught wise an' played the dang role "on the nose" (notta jooish yoke thar!)...an' sadly rendered a diminished performance unworthy of the text.
Then again, all things considered, The King's Players were a mix of "well-seasoned" performers an' a good smatterin' of "tasteLESS" wet-behind-the-ears young whippersnappers in drag there fer a lark makin' the entire affair far more raucous than maw-durn expectations would indy-cate. An' that's not even includin' the audience! WHAT kinda Shylock might the groundlings have seen from down below? Would've liked ta have been a fly on the wall...likely there whar many (flies that iz)!
ps not yet but I saved the link! still got it!
Why, Dayzee! How nice to reconnect with you, after Lo so much time has passed - especially since we are recon’n on someone else’ substack’s dime! I remain in a deep remission from Multiple Myeloma [good!], though I am suffrin’ serious pain, similar to what I had before I was properly diagnosed [bad] and treated properly with CAR-T (the new medical marvel that has put me into remission). My book has finally been translated into German and is expected to be published (the book, not the remission) in Deutschland at the end of this year or beginning of next. Are you feeling/doing better? I don’t think I can continue carrying on about us on someone else’s substack, so shoot me a note. Or just shoot me. 😘
This essay is based on my 2025 book, Shakespeare's Re-Visions of History.https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Re-Visions-History-Collusion-Resistance/dp/9366273513
Shylock “ It was my turquoise; I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor: I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.”
Presumably those monkeys obtained a wilderness of typewriters and then wrote Shakespeare’s plays 😂
Phobia is usually defined as an irrational, morbid fear of a thing, as in gynophobia, the fear of women.
Misia is usually defined as a hatred of a thing, as in misogyny, the hatred of women.
Judophobia would thus be an irrational fear of Jews while Judomesia would be a hatred of Jews. Thus one can fear a thing without desiring to kill it, but if one hates a thing, then wishing to eliminate it would be an expected reaction. And given the opportunity, haters do execute their hatreds in real time.
It is necessary to make the distinction between a phobia and a misia because otherwise for political or propaganda purposes one could manipulate the term "phobia" to disguise hatred, in so doing, making violence socially acceptable, as we see more and more on our streets and campuses.